V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent by proceedings no. A1/1570/95 dated 30-6-2000 communicated the final seniority list of casual labourers working in the agricultural Research Station and Colleges in Zone-III. One T. Nageswara Rao (hereafter referred as "casual employee") working at Cotton Research Station, amaravathi, was placed at Serial No. 30 in the seniority list and the relevant entry in the seniority list shows that he was appointed on 1-4-1990. The petitioner, which is a registered labour union, complains that the casual employee has in fact joined the service on 1-1-1975 and therefore, he ought to have been placed at serial No. 1. The petitioner-Union approached this Court praying to declare the seniority list placing the casual employee at Serial No. 30 instead of Serial no. 1 as illegal, unjust and contrary to law. ( 2 ) BY the impugned seniority list, the university authorities decided the seniority of 67 casual labourers, who are the members of the petitioner-Union. Every employee whose name is found in the seniority list is an aggrieved party with reference to the seniority list. The labour union as such cannot be given locus standi as aggrieved party to file the writ petition because the grievance made out is that the placement of one individual employee in the seniority is unjust and illegal. If the union chooses to challenge the very method adopted for preparation of seniority list resulting in injustice to all the employees or chooses to challenge the enabling Rule or provision so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is always desirable to entertain the writ petition as a representative cause. However, in this case, the Union chose to espouse the cause of a single casual employee, who is an aggrieved party, with reference to the seniority list. Therefore, on the principle of jus tertii, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and the writ petition at the instance of union cannot be entertained. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, sri A. K. Jayaprakash has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of High court of Madras in State Bank ofbikaner and jaipur vs. State Bank ofbikaner and Jaipur employees Association and others1. It was a case where the employees Association challenged the refund of amount of about rs. 50,46,1167- from the State Bank of bikaner and Jiapur Employees Welfare provident Fund. It was a case where the employees Association challenged the refund of amount of about rs. 50,46,1167- from the State Bank of bikaner and Jiapur Employees Welfare provident Fund. A learned Single Judge issued mandamus commanding to forbear from refunding the said amount. In the lpa, the management contended that the writ petition at the instance of Association is not maintainable. The Division Bench rejected the contention observing that the employees Association can collectively initiate proceedings on behalf of individual employee if the action complained of affects all the employees. The judgment of the madras High Court in the said case is an authority for the well settled proposition that a registered Trade Union is an aggrieved party vis-a-vis the grievance of a large group of workers/employees whose cause it seeks to espouse. The decision of madras High Court is not an authority to recognise the petitioner herein as an aggrieved party in the inter se dispute of employees with regard to seniority. Further, a Trade-Union cannot take sides with each individual or a group of individuals in a matter and a Trade-Union should act impartially while espousing the cause of its members. It is always open to the aggrieved individual worker/employee to challenge the seniority list separately. ( 4 ) IN the result, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission.